#US v. trump

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Sign a letter asking Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from United States v. Trump

Lawyers Defending American Democracy has invited readers of this newsletter to sign onto a letter calling on Justice Thomas to recuse himself from US v. Trump. I have signed the letter.

As our letter sets forth in detail, Justice Thomas’ spouse, Virginia, has an extensive and well-documented involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and obstruct certification of the electoral vote. Efforts to overturn that election are at the heart of criminal charges against the former president.  If the Supreme Court decides that presidential immunity applies to all of the former president’s actions, Virginia Thomas escapes the potential scrutiny that could emerge in a trial against Mr. Trump. Under the Court’s own Code of Conduct, disqualification is warranted where Justices know that they, or their spouse, have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of a proceeding. The only correct action under the Code is for Justice Thomas to recuse himself on April 25. If he will not, then the Chief Justice should exercise his leadership and intervene.  We are asking you to please join LDAD’s efforts to prevent this from happening by signing our letter to Chief Justice Roberts today. To sign, click on this link: Call on Justice Thomas to Recuse Himself in United States v. Trump. – LDAD

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[the-psudo]

Quick update: Trump is currently under indictment on 78 felony charges.

34 charges out of New York for defrauding the government to conceal a minor campaign finance violation. (the Stormy Daniels case)

40 federal charges out of Florida relating to mishandling of classified documents (+2 of his co-conspirators). This later indictment replaced the earlier one, which only had 37 charges (+1 of a co-conspirator).

And 4 brand new federal charges in the Jan 6th/fake electors case.

All of those links point to the indictments that were filed with the courts.

34 + 40 + 4 = 78 charges against Trump himself

34 + 42 + 4 = 80 charges against Trump and his co-conspirators.

Each of these four indictments was issued by a grand jury of everyday citizens of Manhattan; of the Southern District of Florida (Palm Beach County); and of Washington, DC.

The media is not behind these indictments. Joe Biden is not behind them. The deep state is not behind them.

The criminal justice system and grand juries full of regular American citizens are behind these indictments. These indictments are the people of the United States of America vs. Donald J. Trump.

[wizard-laundry]

QUICK REMINDER

In the US: threatening government officials is a felony under federal law (the president in particular is protected under 18 U.S.C. § 871). Even memes.

be careful with your jokes if they spill over to active officials.

[drunkmusichistorian]

[onemore2morrow]

I don’t know if this makes sense and I’m probably gonna delete it eventually because Trump administration and internet tracking 🤪

I have seen so many white women on TikTok talk about the “4b” movement or “boycotting men”. I’ve also seen so many white women talking about a “loss for women everywhere” and “the devastating feeling of being a woman” and “is this what katniss felt like?”. And those feelings are valid, I’m not one to tell people how they can / can’t react during a world changing election. (I also know the katniss one is usually a joke).

But 53% of us couldn’t even band together to vote for a qualified black woman over a literal rapist. We need to swallow that. We need to address that. And that same 53% is commenting things like “He doesn’t want you anyway🤪” or “More for me!” on posts talking about things like a sex ban or 4B movement. There is no sisterhood, and there will be no “4B, 5B, 6B, or 7B” movement so long as 53% of white women continue to center men. Even out of those of us that did vote for Kamala or third party, some of us didn’t break up with our republican boyfriends/fiances/husbands until yesterday. And make no mistake, I am so proud of those of you who did finally find the courage to end that relationship. I’m not shaming you. But I am saying we cannot rely on this “sisterhood”.

There is no sisterhood in whiteness, because white supremacy and far-right ideologies are inherently based on in group fighting and othering. Make no mistake, you can find sisterhood in your white friends, women, and groups. But there’s a difference. Sisterhood and female solidarity has never been a part of whiteness. Which is why it is so important we center poc and specifically black voices during the next years ahead. Not to put labor on them, not as an excuse to not work, but because this “sisterhood” we speak of doesn’t exist. Not without acknowledging race. If we truly want to see change, we need to start decentralizing ourselves from the conversation. We need to unpack whiteness. And we need to unpack our main character syndromes.

What does this mean?

No handmaids tale cosplays.

No “we’re the daughters of the witches you couldn’t burn”.

No “I was raised by Katniss Everdeen”

Again, I am not saying that sisterhood doesn’t exist among white women. But I am saying sisterhood centered around whiteness will never be as strong or as potent as intersectional, anti-racist sisterhood. And if we really, really want to see change, we need to unpack this and we need to unpack this yesterday.

I hope this makes sense.

Sincerely,

An Embarrassed, Disappointed White Woman

p.s.

I’m not saying anything new. But unfortunately, if it’s from a fellow white woman I’m hoping more people will listen.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

David Badash at NCRM:

Republicans ground the House to a halt Wednesday afternoon after U.S. Rep. Erin Houchin (R-IN) objected to remarks made by Rules Committee Ranking Member Jim McGovern (D-MA), during which he delivered a short overview of the 88 criminal charges Donald Trump is facing, and civil court findings including one deeming him an adjudicated rapist. “Take down his words,” Congresswoman Houchin declared, interrupting Rep. McGovern. “I demand that his words be taken down.” For more than one hour, according to Fox News’ Chad Pergram, the people’s business stopped as Republicans, angered by the Democrat’s factual remarks, had them investigated by the House Parliamentarian. “Donald Trump might want to be a king, but he is not a king,” Congressman McGovern observed. “He is not a presumptive king. he’s not even the president – he’s a presumptive nominee.”

“At some point,” McGovern told his congressional colleagues, “it’s time for this body to recognize that there is no precedent for this situation. We have a presumptive nominee for President facing 88 felony counts, and we’re being prevented from even acknowledging it. These are not alternative facts. These are real facts. A candidate for President of the United States is on trial for sending a hush money payment to a porn star to avoid a sex scandal during his 2016 campaign, and then fraudulently disguising those payments in violation of the law. He’s also charged with conspiring to overturn the election. He’s also charged with stealing classified information and a jury has already found him liable for rape and a civil court. And yet, in this Republican controlled House, it’s okay to talk about the trial but you have to call it a sham.” The decision to strike McGovern’s “offensive” remarks appears to have come from U.S. Rep. Jerry Carl (R-AL), who was presiding over the chamber. He cited House Rule XVII, which Pergram reported “says House members are prohibited from impugning the motives of fellow House members, senators or the President. And in this case, the former President.”

Earlier, before Rep. Houchin demanded his remarks be stricken, McGovern also blasted Republicans for traveling to New York in their “cult uniforms,” to show support for Donald Trump at his criminal trial in Lower Manhattan. The Massachusetts Democrat told his colleagues, “my friends over the other side of the aisle have pandered to their most extreme members over and over and over again. They let the extremists kick out their own Speaker. They let the extremists dictate the agenda on the House floor. They let the extremists take down seven rule votes since January 2023 – a stunning indictment of their ability to get anything done. And speaking of indictments, Republicans are skipping their real jobs to take day trips up to New York to try to undermine Donald Trump’s criminal trial. No time to work with Democrats, but plenty of time to put on weird matching cult uniforms and stand behind President Trump with their bright red ties like pathetic props.”

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)’s speech on the House floor calling out criminal defendant Donald Trump was delivering truth bombs left and right, and it made Republicans upset, especially the part in which he said that Trump “might want to be a king, but he is not a king” and the fact that he was calling out his criminality.

Rep. Erin Houchin (R-IN) was the Republican who ordered a frivolous halt to McGovern’s speech by demanding “that his words be taken down.” Floor Presider Jerry Carl (R-AL) granted Houchin’s request, and McGovern was barred from speaking on the Floor for the rest of the day.

See Also:

NBC News: Democrat McGovern ruled 'out of order' after listing off Trump's legal woes on the House floor

Daily Kos: GOP brings House to a halt to debate whether facts are allowed

[breathetoseethetruth]

Banning abortion, talks/plans about banning contraceptives, banning no fault divorce...

Some of you know they won't stop there. If they can push it that far, eventually they'll ban women staying single, women receiving higher education, women being able to have their own bank accounts and income...

Eventually, they'll decriminalize rape and violence by men against women (at least within marriages).

Ladies, vote blue. Your lives depend on it. Men who even remotely care about women and view them as human beings, do the same. You won't lose rights as men, but the rights of your beloved daughters, sisters and mothers are on the line.

[tomorrowusa]

The Phantom Menace.

There should be pushback to anybody telling you that wasting a vote on Jill Stein is a good idea.

If people who foolishly voted for Jill Stein in three states in 2016 had instead voted for Hillary Clinton, Trump would never have been president and Roe v. Wade would still be the law of the land.

Jill Stein is a creature of Putin. She was a nobody in 2015 who somehow sat at Putin's table at anniversary celebrations for RT.

One thing worse than being a dupe is being the dupe of a dupe.

And voting for Jill Stein makes you a loser as well as a dupe. The last time a non-Democrat or non-Republican won the presidency was in 1848. Don't expect that streak to end this year.

The odds of winning the Jackpot prize in the Powerball lottery are 1 : 292,201,338. Those are excellent odds compared to the likelihood of a Jill Stein victory in 2024.

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace gave us Jar Jar Binks. Vladimir Putin gave us Jill Jill Stinks and ultimately Dozy Donny.

The ONLY way to defeat Donald Trump is to vote for Kamala Harris. Voting for Jill Stein or not voting at all would be tantamount to support for Trump.

[castielsprostate]

us-ians try not to fuck up this election and vote blue challenge (impossible) (they don't care about anyone but themselves) (they're unable to see the devastating consequences if that orange buffoon is re-elected) (they don't understand how their own government works) (voting blue is literally the only option you have if you want to survive past 2030. like there is literally no other fucking option. if you do not vote blue this year, so much blood will be on your hands you can't even imagine it i don't think) (us-ians are too shortsighted to see what will happen to the rest of the fucking world if their little orange dictator gets reelected and they. don't. care.)

[toshtoshtosh]

A 34-week-old fetus isn’t classified as “full term” but it IS well past the age of fetal viability, meaning the point at which it could survive outside of the womb. So, if you’re “aborting” a fetus that could survive outside of the womb and disposing of the body, what might we call that?

[cimerran-714]

I figured that it would be helpful to call out ten of the most common pro-choice arguments that you might notice online. I'll preface it by saying that I am not a philosopher (or at least not yet), but I am a person with common sense, and you can see through these "arguments" if you have two brain-cells left.

Also, I understand that there are good PC arguments out there (although they are of course not successful, for a strong argument doesn't necessarily have to succeed). I am only arguing some of the most insane and ridiculous ones you'd spot.

If you want to go through some really good claims made by pro-choice/pro-abortion advocates, I'd recommend David Boonin's 'A Defense of Abortion'. It'd help you instead of you having to regurgitate whatever you are spoon-fed by the leftist cult. Go check out that book even if you're pro-life, because it's a great one.

Let's get started, shall we?

A human embryo/fetus is not human:

Yes, it's both human and alive. Biologists agree with this (including pro-choice biologists), and even pro-choice philosophers acknowledge this. This is basic empirical reality. And you only have to open an embryology textbook to know how wrong you are. Also, these people can never explain what species the fetus belongs to if not "Homo Sapiens".

2. It's just a "clump of cells".

All of us are made up of cells. Some are "clumpier" than others. And plus, it's not merely a clump of cells: the embryo is a human organism in its earlier stages of development, and very soon is also differentiated as it grows. That's like saying that it's okay to destroy a car because it's just "a bunch of metal thrown together".

3. It's not a person/sentient, yadda yadda:

Irrelevant and it's the same logic that slave-owners used to own people. Human rights is species-based, and the embryo/fetus is human. That's all that matters. These people love to make up ridiculous, arbitrary criteria to justify their bigotry.

4. You cannot force people to donate their organs...

Not the same thing at all. You cannot be forced to save people, but that doesn't mean you can actively kill them. This is the difference between killing someone and letting them die. There is a significant moral difference between deliberately pushing someone off a cliff and not saving someone who's hanging off a branch at a cliff. Abortion is the former.

5. Women would die...

All states have life-threat exceptions built into it, so this is just deflection. And yes, there are doctors who refuse to perform entirely legal abortions, but that is their fault. It IS legal. They're just cowards, and you can't blame the law for this because they already make this exception.

6. You cannot force your views onto others:

If you support democracy (and, you know, voting) you're forcing your views onto others. That's how law works.

7. The child would grow up in poverty, yadda yadda yadda...:

We don't kill born children because of these reasons, so it's a ridiculous claim. You don't solve poverty by killing the poor.

8. They are just pro-birth:

Statistics show that Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats. Also, just because they don't agree with your method of helping people doesn't mean that they don't care about born people. You see, it's like saying "A fire-fighter rescued someone from a fire, but they don't want to pay out of their pockets to look after them throughout their lives. They don't actually care!"

9. Showing pics of fetuses belonging to other species as a gotcha:

Yes, mammals of different species look the same in their earlier stages, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between them. This is, once again, bigoted slaver logic (to want to kill people based on their looks).

10. Men cannot have a say because:

As men are directly affected by this, they absolutely have a say. They are fathers too, and remember that they're the ones who have to pay child support.

There you go. I am not expecting you to be pro-life yet if you are not, but I hope that I have cleared your head up somewhat.

[onespiderfrommars]

they made a martyr out of him.

when progressives call for increased restrictions on gun access, conservatives will point out that someone tried to shoot a republican presidential candidate.

conservatives will point out that it’s a trump supporter who was killed at a rally.

it won’t matter what kind of immoral actions supporting trump makes conservatives complicit in.

what will matter to them is that it was us who got violent.

all this to say: the best way to keep donald trump out of office is to vote. get out to the polls. spread reliable information. make your voice heard.

the only way to take back our democracy is to actively participate in it.

[pjharvey-moved]

if tumblr existed in 1984 (the year not the universe of the novel by the same name) you guys would genuinely be telling people not to vote bc walter mondale would be Just As Bad as ronald reagan. you guys would be saying that being anti ronald reagan instead of anti the whole system is liberal nonsense

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lisa Needham at Public Notice:

It has often been said that Donald Trump was running for president to keep himself out of prison. Mission accomplished.

But the fact that Trump wasn’t behind bars long ago, that he didn’t suffer any consequences for his criming and now likely never will, can be laid squarely at the feet of one man: Attorney General Merrick Garland. Garland dragged his feet on prosecuting Trump for election interference and pilfering classified documents, making it easy for him to run out the clock.  Coming in on the heels of a literal insurrection, Garland was a bad fit for his job from the jump. He made clear early on that he didn’t see addressing issues from the Trump era as a priority, declaring that he would not look backward. Garland is an institutionalist, leading him to see his real job as protecting the Department of Justice rather than imposing any consequences on Bill Barr and others who turned the DOJ into a corrupt playground. Someone who saw the abstract notion of an institution as more important than actual people and actual wrongdoing was never going to be the person who aggressively pursued an ex-president whose crimes were always in full view, which was what the country desperately needed back in 2021.

Bringing a knife to a gunfight

Rather than moving quickly to prosecute people — including Trump — for January 6, Garland’s first moves were to take actions that actually favored Trump, all in the name of protecting the institution. In May 2021, the DOJ went to court to block the release of most of a Bill Barr memo that might have revealed how hard Barr worked to avoid charging Trump with obstruction of justice after the Mueller report. There, Garland was continuing work that had begun under Trump. But while it made sense that Barr would want to block the release of information revealing his role in helping Trump, it made no sense for Garland to want the same. The country had both a right and a need to learn everything possible about what happened during the first Trump presidency and led to a spasm of treasonous violence. That’s far more important than getting a generally favorable ruling on the DOJ’s right to sit on memos. 

Garland also moved quickly to defend Trump against defamation claims by E. Jean Carroll, brought after Trump claimed she made up her accusation of sexual assault to sell books. The DOJ filed a brief substituting the government as the defendant for Trump so it could argue that Trump’s defamation of Carroll was done in the scope of his employment as president, which would likely have resulted in the case getting dismissed. As with the Barr memo, Garland decided it was more important to preserve the DOJ’s general ability to protect federal officials from defamation claims than to acknowledge the unprecedented nature of Trump’s behavior and let him suffer the consequences he clearly deserved.  Taken in a vacuum, neither of these actions would be quite so galling. In both instances, Garland was generally trying to maximize the DOJ’s power, which isn’t necessarily awful. But what is galling is that he took these two steps with such swiftness, only a few months after being confirmed, while not showing nearly the same concern to address Trump’s crimes. 

Fairness to the point of absurdity

Garland’s desire to always appear evenhanded is also what led to the ridiculously aggressive pursuit of Hunter Biden, naming a special counsel and ultimately successfully prosecuting the president’s son for tax evasion and lying on a federal form to obtain a gun. And don’t forget how swiftly Garland appointed a special counsel to investigate President Biden’s retention of classified material. In early November 2022, the White House voluntarily disclosed that some classified documents had been found at Biden’s think tank. The FBI opened an investigation five days later, and Garland raced to name a special counsel, appointing Robert Hur in January 2023. Hur was a Trump appointee, serving as United States Attorney for the District of Maryland from 2018 to 2021, and he demonstrated his hackishness by releasing a report in February of this year that did grave political damage to Biden by gratuitously describing him as an “elderly man with a poor memory.”

While Garland couldn’t move fast enough to protect the DOJ and to aggressively pursue the Biden family to show his evenhandedness, he didn’t get around to naming Jack Smith as a special prosecutor until November 2022, nearly two years after the insurrection. By that time, it was likely already too late. This is true even if Smith had not run into unexpected obstacles, such as Trump winning over the Supreme Court with an absurd argument that he was basically wholly immune from criminal charges.

[...]

All those motions and appeals take time, which is why it was a bad idea to wait until November 2022 to appoint Smith, who then had to convene a grand jury to consider criminal charges over Trump’s willful retention of classified documents and his lies to the FBI about it. Smith didn’t issue an indictment in that case until June 2023. Smith had to convene a separate grand jury for charges related to the insurrection, so the DOJ didn’t indict Trump on those charges until August 2023.

This left Smith overseeing two incredibly complex cases against a defendant with nearly limitless resources, given that Trump could keep tapping political action committees for his legal bills, shifting the cost to his campaign donors and the RNC. By March 2024, Trump had racked up $100 million in legal fees, and while he kept draining the coffers of various PACs, donors were always eager to replenish those funds. Therefore, Trump could file as many frivolous motions as he wanted and run out the clock without taking any money out of his pocket. Smith never honestly had a chance that these cases would wrap up before Election Day. Garland’s foot-dragging on naming Smith is precisely what allowed Trump to run out the clock on his federal criminal charges, setting the stage for a presidential run that culminated Tuesday with his shockingly thorough defeat of Vice President Kamala Harris.

Appointing Merrick Garland to AG was a terrible choice in retrospect, as his timidness allowed a criminal to get off scot-free and run for President (and win).

[ateremteshezterkell]

Where is the line?

How does this even happen? A man convicted of 34 felonies—a man directly involved in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol —somehow gets not only to run for president again but to win. How does he come back, claiming the right to lead the very democracy he undermined? How does a nation so proud of its justice system, of its ideals of law and order, look the other way? Where is the line? What does it say about a system, about a nation, that turns a blind eye to his crimes? How can a country built on principles of freedom ignore that threat? At what point does a democracy stop being one?

And what about the women who dared to speak up? At least 26 women came forward to accuse him of sexual assaul. These women—brave and vulnerable—bared their stories, hoping their voices would be enough to hold him accountable. They risked their own peace, safety, and mental health, believing in the justice system, believing in truth. And yet, as he claims his office, what does it tell them? That no matter how many speak up, power and influence will drown them out? We are told again and again that an accusation can “ruin a man’s life.” But how ruined can his life be if he’s now the president once again? How hollow do those words sound to women who dared to stand up? What message does this send to women? That no matter how brave they are, their voices don’t matter? That their pain is somehow always less important than the power a man holds? How can anyone tell women to have faith in justice when justice looks away so easily, so willingly?

Then there’s the assault on women’s rights themselves. Look at what’s happened with Roe v. Wade, the protection of bodily autonomy stripped away, leaving millions of women with no say over their own bodies. This new government, with its conservative grip on the judiciary, is likely to tighten that hold, chipping away at autonomy and bodily freedom until little remains. People scoff at comparisons to The Handmaid’s Tale, but isn’t this a page straight from it? How does a woman find safety, find equality, when those who govern see her rights as disposable? And with the Supreme Court potentially packed with MAGA for decades to come, where is the hope for progress? What kind of future does that create for a generation of women? What does it say about freedom when one group’s autonomy is treated like an afterthought?

And then there’s the colossal denial of climate change. This man, who calls climate change a “hoax,” who refuses to believe in science while the world watches hurricanes grow stronger, wildfires rage hotter, and coastlines disappear. How can a leader turn his back on such a crisis? And how can voters in states already devastated by floods, wildfires, droughts still support him? How does that make sense? Are they so determined to pretend these disasters don’t exist, so eager to ignore reality? What happens when there’s no coastline left, when hurricanes devour towns whole, when the air is thick with smoke and the waters too high to contain? It feels like watching a nightmare unfold, knowing people have chosen it willingly, knowing they are burying their heads in the sand. But when that sand is swept away by rising oceans, what will be left?

And yet, people wonder how certain dictators rose to power in the past. They look back, horrified, asking how it happened, how no one stopped him, how the warning signs went ignored. But is the world not seeing the same thing now? Every sign, every pattern is there, and still, people turn away, hoping someone else will step in, that it will all work out on its own. But if no one intervenes, if the world stands by hoping for the best, where does this end?

One day, people will look back on this moment, asking how it was allowed to happen, how the world stood still and watched. And then, will they see it all with the same horror, asking why no one stopped it before it went too far?

I only hope I’m wrong. I never thought I’d have to hope this hard to be so very, very wrong.